2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime; (b) the amount of damage to the instant thief was not significantly high; and (c) the Defendant did not participate in his living while getting out his job due to his failure to find his job; and (d) appears to have come out to the instant crime.

However, even though the defendant had had been already punished several times due to the same type of crime, he did not throw away the habit of larceny, and even one month after the execution of the last sentence is completed, the crime is very heavy, the victims have not recovered, and the victims have not been punished. The damage of the property in this case may have been caused by the defendant's act of destroying the property in this case by attaching the stolen electric wire on the floor, and there may have been a significant damage to the defendant's criminal records, age, character and behavior, family environment, the method and result of the crime in this case, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, it is clear that the "electric poles" in Part 17 of the decision of the court below is a clerical error in the "electric wires", and thus, it is corrected in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.